Here’s a little sneak peek at our November/December cover:
We organized a debate between two pastors, one of whom is against the idea of churches video venues and the other of whom is the campus pastor at a video venue: Bob Hyatt and James Harleman, respectively. Before you read their thoughts in the upcoming issue of COLLIDE, I’d like to hear your thoughts.
Where do you stand on the topic of video venues? What are the advantages and disadvantages as you see them?
When we first talked about starting a video venue all the men on my leadership team agreed it was nothing we would be interested in attending. That settled it. We were going for it! Afterall, we were not trying to reach us, we were already attending. If we were going to reach others, we had to do something different.
When I served as a missionary I had to learn and adapt to the language AND culture of the host country. When I came home, this country had changed. I am learning to speak and translate the message of the gospel into the language of this new generation. Many countries are auditory in their learning due to illiteracy. The US has become visual in its primary language. I’m trying to learn to “speak” it. Video venues do that.
A key to success though, is having a pastor over the venue so it is not just a movie theater with preaching but a caring community under Biblical leadership.
Trite but true:
Insanity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.
If you do what you’ve always done you will get what you always got.
If you want to reach different folks you have got to be willing to present the timeless message in a time sensitive context.
PS – Video venues aren’t just for postmodern, “let’s see how weird we can do church” kind of guys. I am 53 years old and pretty traditional but still passionate about becoming “all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.”
I think the problem comes in missing what the medium of the video venue says, in just being a video venue (this is a “the Medium is the Message” thing) Many churches rebroadcast a great speaker many times over as a solution of how to get the word out. But what that ignores is the inherent message that only a select few are good enough to speak. If we believe in the priesthood of believers – that each Christian can be spoken to by the holy spirit and share that with others – not just the best of the orators, then mass replication of one message diminishes that. We also enhance the celebrity of the teaching pastor and diminish the equal standing of each believer. I also think this is a problem with the mega-church as well, but that is a different topic. The way I often describe it is this: If the video venue is taken to it farthest reach – then ever church in every town would just be an overflow of one thought, at it’s extent it sound silly – then why is it not silly with one or two or three? when does it pass the silly marker?
I have major issues. Seems like a path of least resistance approach. “We’re not going to train and empower pastors for congregations, we’ll just leverage the training and experience that a few already have.” “People don’t want to listen to some guy preaching, but if they’re watching it on TV, it’s cool!”
Interaction between a preaching pastor and a congregation member with this model is far more limited. That isolation is already a major problem in the Church. I know that a pastor knowing his congregation is hardly even a goal any more (“that’s what we have small groups for”), but Jesus’ metaphor and model of shepherd wasn’t “go lead the masses by remote control”.
This also seems to foster more of a empire-building way of doing church and centralising control. Which raises the stakes big time on a few foibled mortals. It’s a lot of trust that doesn’t become real to people until it’s in jeopardy, or broken.
@Rick — I appreciate your points, and I agree with the cultural language being visual. But I don’t think this is postmodern at all. It’s hyper-modern. Including components for the ears and eyes (and the other 3 senses, why not?) in a service is great. And any church can do that. But in this case questions come up about structure, power and accountability, and those questions are more important than glitzy, slick presentation.
I’ll be interested to read whether the Collide article can address these issues and make me rethink my biases.
As leaders in the church, this will be one of the most important conversations of our generation. That is because we are experimenting with how ‘church’ is being done – compared to how it has been done.
As a pastor at a multi-site church, I say, ‘Don’t knock it until you try it’. What elements of a local church are vital? Worship? Community? Mission? Teaching? Evangelism? If so, I have experienced that all of these take place at a ‘video venue’. Is the 30 minute message really 80% of the life of a church? I hope not.
I also have found that the leaders who are leading a campus in a multi-site approach have to be strong leaders and very intentional about leading the elements that are critical to a local church. I think the thought sited above – that Jesus’s model of shepherd wasn’t ‘go lead the masses by remote control’ needs to be re-thought. Jesus didn’t know every person when he gave the sermon on the mount. The apostles chose in Acts 6 that others needed to tend to the daily needs of the people while they spent time in the Word and prayer, etc.
The multi-site approach has not had the time to prove a long term success. However, I see the very same ’spiritual fruit’ here that I would see at a vibrant and healthy single location church.
When we think that people really need us (the speaking pastor) to stand twenty feet in front of them in the flesh to deliver a message and not trust other spiritual leaders to lead the community, we may have placed too much value in ourselves.
We’ve got a lot to learn. No one way is the only way nor the best way. Multi-site, I believe, is just another way – and very viable.
Okay, point taken — the sermon should not be 80% of what church life is all about. Unfortunately (shockingly?), conversations with many around me and online would seem to put roughly that level of emphasis on it. Whatever arbitrary percentage we give it, it’s still a pretty important element of church. (Postmodern digression: what would church look like without sermons?)
The Bible is all about relationships. It mentions more than once that Christ looked on the crowds with compassion. I maintain that it’s harder to look at video cameras and empirical data with compassion. (Not saying that there isn’t compassion for video venues, just that it’s abstracted.) Speaking personally, if I’m not sharing life with my pastor at some level, I’m going to find it extremely hard to trust and respect his message, or even to get a clear sense of where it’s coming from. And just as importantly, if I was a video pastor, I would have very shaky confidence that my message would fit seamlessly into the context and specific priorities (worship, community, mission, teaching) of satellite churches.
It’s my opinion that the Church should be leading the charge for people getting to actually, personally know — and love — each other. If the vehicle for that message is a mostly anonymous talking head, there’s a disconnect.
While I am not a pastor or staff at any church I have participated at both a 7000+ member faith community for many years and I also briefly attended a video venue church. Ironically I found them to be similar in many ways. When a church becomes very large,the senior pastor(aka “the talking head”) while 20, 50 or a 100 feet away is still beyond the reach of most people. Trying to be in relatioinship with that person is and will be futile for the typical attender. However, lots of other support staff are usually in place to fill those pastoral roles. Sometimes this is accomplished with great success and sometimes it is not.
In my experience the same is true with the Video Venue Church. All the same components are there. What seems to matter most is the quality of the support staff; campus pastors, childrens ministers and other leadership connecting to people for those who are looking for that.
The same mentality is implemented at a remote or video driven venue. The message is delivered and is usually received just as enthusiastically. Worship is live and is typically very good. Support staff are in place to make the relationship connections etc. The disconnect happens when the vision of the venue, the technology and innovation etc. is prioritized over the spiritual and emotional health of the people. I have experienced this to a greater extent at the remote video driven campus.
I believe video driven venues can be just as effective as any other traditional church setting. The technology of video/satellite is just a vehicle for delivering a message. I surmise that it all depends on how you focus your people resources(staff and support leadership) and how relational and interested in personal connection they are.
Wow – can’t wait to read that! I go back and forth on this topic, so this should be great.
posted at 9:54 am on October 22nd, 2008 by Lex